A proposition has a well-founded justification tree
if there is a sequence of back-chained inference
steps from that proposition to the axioms of the
formal system.
On 24/04/2026 15:41, olcott wrote:
A proposition has a well-founded justification tree
if there is a sequence of back-chained inference
steps from that proposition to the axioms of the
formal system.
By "back-chained inference steps" you mean "chained reversals of
inferences steps"?
On 6/17/2026 9:01 AM, Tristan Wibberley wrote:
On 24/04/2026 15:41, olcott wrote:
A proposition has a well-founded justification tree
if there is a sequence of back-chained inference
steps from that proposition to the axioms of the
formal system.
By "back-chained inference steps" you mean "chained reversals of
inferences steps"?
It is exactly the same as inference steps from the
axioms to the expression yet can be done much more
quickly because a forward looking search is not
required. All theorem proving systems use back-chaining
for this reason.
On 06/17/2026 07:50 AM, olcott wrote:
On 6/17/2026 9:01 AM, Tristan Wibberley wrote:
On 24/04/2026 15:41, olcott wrote:
A proposition has a well-founded justification tree
if there is a sequence of back-chained inference
steps from that proposition to the axioms of the
formal system.
By "back-chained inference steps" you mean "chained reversals of
inferences steps"?
It is exactly the same as inference steps from the
axioms to the expression yet can be done much more
quickly because a forward looking search is not
required. All theorem proving systems use back-chaining
for this reason.
Hilbert-Bernays paradox
On 6/17/2026 10:03 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 06/17/2026 07:50 AM, olcott wrote:
On 6/17/2026 9:01 AM, Tristan Wibberley wrote:
On 24/04/2026 15:41, olcott wrote:
A proposition has a well-founded justification tree
if there is a sequence of back-chained inference
steps from that proposition to the axioms of the
formal system.
By "back-chained inference steps" you mean "chained reversals of
inferences steps"?
It is exactly the same as inference steps from the
axioms to the expression yet can be done much more
quickly because a forward looking search is not
required. All theorem proving systems use back-chaining
for this reason.
Hilbert-Bernays paradox
(T) The sentence ′P′ is true if and only if P
The sentence "snow is white" (syntax) is true only if
{snow is white} (semantics) is state of the world.
This sentence is not true: "This sentence is not true"
the outer sentence is true on the basis that the inner
sentence is not truth apt.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hilbert%E2%80%93Bernays_paradox
% This sentence is not true.
?- LP = not(true(LP)).
LP = not(true(LP)).
?- unify_with_occurs_check(LP, not(true(LP))).
false.
All instances of pathological self-reference
are rejected as semantically incoherent.
On 06/17/2026 08:15 AM, olcott wrote:
On 6/17/2026 10:03 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 06/17/2026 07:50 AM, olcott wrote:
On 6/17/2026 9:01 AM, Tristan Wibberley wrote:
On 24/04/2026 15:41, olcott wrote:
A proposition has a well-founded justification tree
if there is a sequence of back-chained inference
steps from that proposition to the axioms of the
formal system.
By "back-chained inference steps" you mean "chained reversals of
inferences steps"?
It is exactly the same as inference steps from the
axioms to the expression yet can be done much more
quickly because a forward looking search is not
required. All theorem proving systems use back-chaining
for this reason.
Hilbert-Bernays paradox
(T) The sentence ′P′ is true if and only if P
The sentence "snow is white" (syntax) is true only if
{snow is white} (semantics) is state of the world.
This sentence is not true: "This sentence is not true"
the outer sentence is true on the basis that the inner
sentence is not truth apt.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hilbert%E2%80%93Bernays_paradox
% This sentence is not true.
?- LP = not(true(LP)).
LP = not(true(LP)).
?- unify_with_occurs_check(LP, not(true(LP))).
false.
All instances of pathological self-reference
are rejected as semantically incoherent.
Yet, your own statements are such.
On 06/17/2026 08:15 AM, olcott wrote:
On 6/17/2026 10:03 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 06/17/2026 07:50 AM, olcott wrote:
On 6/17/2026 9:01 AM, Tristan Wibberley wrote:
On 24/04/2026 15:41, olcott wrote:
A proposition has a well-founded justification tree
if there is a sequence of back-chained inference
steps from that proposition to the axioms of the
formal system.
By "back-chained inference steps" you mean "chained reversals of
inferences steps"?
It is exactly the same as inference steps from the
axioms to the expression yet can be done much more
quickly because a forward looking search is not
required. All theorem proving systems use back-chaining
for this reason.
Hilbert-Bernays paradox
(T) The sentence ′P′ is true if and only if P
The sentence "snow is white" (syntax) is true only if
{snow is white} (semantics) is state of the world.
This sentence is not true: "This sentence is not true"
the outer sentence is true on the basis that the inner
sentence is not truth apt.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hilbert%E2%80%93Bernays_paradox
% This sentence is not true.
?- LP = not(true(LP)).
LP = not(true(LP)).
?- unify_with_occurs_check(LP, not(true(LP))).
false.
All instances of pathological self-reference
are rejected as semantically incoherent.
Yet, your own statements are such.
On 6/17/26 9:08 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 06/17/2026 08:15 AM, olcott wrote:
On 6/17/2026 10:03 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 06/17/2026 07:50 AM, olcott wrote:
On 6/17/2026 9:01 AM, Tristan Wibberley wrote:
On 24/04/2026 15:41, olcott wrote:
A proposition has a well-founded justification tree
if there is a sequence of back-chained inference
steps from that proposition to the axioms of the
formal system.
By "back-chained inference steps" you mean "chained reversals of
inferences steps"?
It is exactly the same as inference steps from the
axioms to the expression yet can be done much more
quickly because a forward looking search is not
required. All theorem proving systems use back-chaining
for this reason.
Hilbert-Bernays paradox
(T) The sentence ′P′ is true if and only if P
The sentence "snow is white" (syntax) is true only if
{snow is white} (semantics) is state of the world.
This sentence is not true: "This sentence is not true"
the outer sentence is true on the basis that the inner
sentence is not truth apt.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hilbert%E2%80%93Bernays_paradox
% This sentence is not true.
?- LP = not(true(LP)).
LP = not(true(LP)).
?- unify_with_occurs_check(LP, not(true(LP))).
false.
All instances of pathological self-reference
are rejected as semantically incoherent.
blanket rejecting self-reference is what they were trying a century ago dud
the turing jump and subsequent "arithmetic hierarchy" applied to
unsolvable problems is exactly where we left of and made no further
progress on in computability (because it was a misstep, for
computability at least)
Yet, your own statements are such.
On 6/17/2026 12:03 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/17/26 9:08 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 06/17/2026 08:15 AM, olcott wrote:
On 6/17/2026 10:03 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 06/17/2026 07:50 AM, olcott wrote:
On 6/17/2026 9:01 AM, Tristan Wibberley wrote:
On 24/04/2026 15:41, olcott wrote:
A proposition has a well-founded justification tree
if there is a sequence of back-chained inference
steps from that proposition to the axioms of the
formal system.
By "back-chained inference steps" you mean "chained reversals of >>>>>>> inferences steps"?
It is exactly the same as inference steps from the
axioms to the expression yet can be done much more
quickly because a forward looking search is not
required. All theorem proving systems use back-chaining
for this reason.
Hilbert-Bernays paradox
(T) The sentence ′P′ is true if and only if P
The sentence "snow is white" (syntax) is true only if
{snow is white} (semantics) is state of the world.
This sentence is not true: "This sentence is not true"
the outer sentence is true on the basis that the inner
sentence is not truth apt.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hilbert%E2%80%93Bernays_paradox
% This sentence is not true.
?- LP = not(true(LP)).
LP = not(true(LP)).
?- unify_with_occurs_check(LP, not(true(LP))).
false.
All instances of pathological self-reference
are rejected as semantically incoherent.
blanket rejecting self-reference is what they were trying a century
ago dud
YOU MUST PAY 100% COMPLETE ATTENTION TO THE EXACT
MEANING OF ALL OF MY WORDS, SKIPPING THE TERM
"PATHOLOGICAL" COMPLETELY CHANGES WHAT I SAID.
the turing jump and subsequent "arithmetic hierarchy" applied to
unsolvable problems is exactly where we left of and made no further
progress on in computability (because it was a misstep, for
computability at least)
Proof Theoretic Semantics (PTS) catches pathological
self-reference (PSR) and rejects it. The key is to make
sure to totally replace Truth Conditional Semantics
(TCS) (employed as model theory) with PTS.
If you continue to make sure to have no idea what
PTS is you will never understand me. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/proof-theoretic-semantics/
Yet, your own statements are such.
On 06/17/2026 11:25 AM, olcott wrote:
On 6/17/2026 12:03 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/17/26 9:08 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 06/17/2026 08:15 AM, olcott wrote:
On 6/17/2026 10:03 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 06/17/2026 07:50 AM, olcott wrote:
On 6/17/2026 9:01 AM, Tristan Wibberley wrote:
On 24/04/2026 15:41, olcott wrote:
A proposition has a well-founded justification tree
if there is a sequence of back-chained inference
steps from that proposition to the axioms of the
formal system.
By "back-chained inference steps" you mean "chained reversals of >>>>>>>> inferences steps"?
It is exactly the same as inference steps from the
axioms to the expression yet can be done much more
quickly because a forward looking search is not
required. All theorem proving systems use back-chaining
for this reason.
Hilbert-Bernays paradox
(T) The sentence ′P′ is true if and only if P
The sentence "snow is white" (syntax) is true only if
{snow is white} (semantics) is state of the world.
This sentence is not true: "This sentence is not true"
the outer sentence is true on the basis that the inner
sentence is not truth apt.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hilbert%E2%80%93Bernays_paradox
% This sentence is not true.
?- LP = not(true(LP)).
LP = not(true(LP)).
?- unify_with_occurs_check(LP, not(true(LP))).
false.
All instances of pathological self-reference
are rejected as semantically incoherent.
blanket rejecting self-reference is what they were trying a century
ago dud
YOU MUST PAY 100% COMPLETE ATTENTION TO THE EXACT
MEANING OF ALL OF MY WORDS, SKIPPING THE TERM
"PATHOLOGICAL" COMPLETELY CHANGES WHAT I SAID.
the turing jump and subsequent "arithmetic hierarchy" applied to
unsolvable problems is exactly where we left of and made no further
progress on in computability (because it was a misstep, for
computability at least)
Proof Theoretic Semantics (PTS) catches pathological
self-reference (PSR) and rejects it. The key is to make
sure to totally replace Truth Conditional Semantics
(TCS) (employed as model theory) with PTS.
If you continue to make sure to have no idea what
PTS is you will never understand me.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/proof-theoretic-semantics/
Yet, your own statements are such.
Don't need it.
(Don't believe it.)
On 6/17/2026 12:03 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/17/26 9:08 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 06/17/2026 08:15 AM, olcott wrote:
On 6/17/2026 10:03 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 06/17/2026 07:50 AM, olcott wrote:
On 6/17/2026 9:01 AM, Tristan Wibberley wrote:
On 24/04/2026 15:41, olcott wrote:
A proposition has a well-founded justification tree
if there is a sequence of back-chained inference
steps from that proposition to the axioms of the
formal system.
By "back-chained inference steps" you mean "chained reversals of >>>>>>> inferences steps"?
It is exactly the same as inference steps from the
axioms to the expression yet can be done much more
quickly because a forward looking search is not
required. All theorem proving systems use back-chaining
for this reason.
Hilbert-Bernays paradox
(T) The sentence ′P′ is true if and only if P
The sentence "snow is white" (syntax) is true only if
{snow is white} (semantics) is state of the world.
This sentence is not true: "This sentence is not true"
the outer sentence is true on the basis that the inner
sentence is not truth apt.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hilbert%E2%80%93Bernays_paradox
% This sentence is not true.
?- LP = not(true(LP)).
LP = not(true(LP)).
?- unify_with_occurs_check(LP, not(true(LP))).
false.
All instances of pathological self-reference
are rejected as semantically incoherent.
blanket rejecting self-reference is what they were trying a century
ago dud
YOU MUST PAY 100% COMPLETE ATTENTION TO THE EXACT
MEANING OF ALL OF MY WORDS, SKIPPING THE TERM
"PATHOLOGICAL" COMPLETELY CHANGES WHAT I SAID.
the turing jump and subsequent "arithmetic hierarchy" applied to
unsolvable problems is exactly where we left of and made no further
progress on in computability (because it was a misstep, for
computability at least)
Proof Theoretic Semantics (PTS) catches pathological
self-reference (PSR) and rejects it. The key is to make
sure to totally replace Truth Conditional Semantics
(TCS) (employed as model theory) with PTS.
If you continue to make sure to have no idea what
PTS is you will never understand me. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/proof-theoretic-semantics/
Yet, your own statements are such.
On 6/17/26 11:25 AM, olcott wrote:
On 6/17/2026 12:03 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/17/26 9:08 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 06/17/2026 08:15 AM, olcott wrote:
On 6/17/2026 10:03 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 06/17/2026 07:50 AM, olcott wrote:
On 6/17/2026 9:01 AM, Tristan Wibberley wrote:
On 24/04/2026 15:41, olcott wrote:
A proposition has a well-founded justification tree
if there is a sequence of back-chained inference
steps from that proposition to the axioms of the
formal system.
By "back-chained inference steps" you mean "chained reversals of >>>>>>>> inferences steps"?
It is exactly the same as inference steps from the
axioms to the expression yet can be done much more
quickly because a forward looking search is not
required. All theorem proving systems use back-chaining
for this reason.
Hilbert-Bernays paradox
(T) The sentence ′P′ is true if and only if P
The sentence "snow is white" (syntax) is true only if
{snow is white} (semantics) is state of the world.
This sentence is not true: "This sentence is not true"
the outer sentence is true on the basis that the inner
sentence is not truth apt.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hilbert%E2%80%93Bernays_paradox
% This sentence is not true.
?- LP = not(true(LP)).
LP = not(true(LP)).
?- unify_with_occurs_check(LP, not(true(LP))).
false.
All instances of pathological self-reference
are rejected as semantically incoherent.
blanket rejecting self-reference is what they were trying a century
ago dud
YOU MUST PAY 100% COMPLETE ATTENTION TO THE EXACT
MEANING OF ALL OF MY WORDS, SKIPPING THE TERM
"PATHOLOGICAL" COMPLETELY CHANGES WHAT I SAID.
how do u differentiate between pathological and non pathological?
and like ... just cause someone has a pathological self-reference
doesn't mean a truth doesn't exist in regards to the question being asked.
the turing jump and subsequent "arithmetic hierarchy" applied to
unsolvable problems is exactly where we left of and made no further
progress on in computability (because it was a misstep, for
computability at least)
Proof Theoretic Semantics (PTS) catches pathological
self-reference (PSR) and rejects it. The key is to make
sure to totally replace Truth Conditional Semantics
(TCS) (employed as model theory) with PTS.
If you continue to make sure to have no idea what
PTS is you will never understand me.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/proof-theoretic-semantics/
if ur not willing to put this in terms of a machine runtime idk what ur talking about really.
computing deals with explicit facts that exist in explicit states of the computation, where more fundamental logic doesn't have that concept of
when things exist, only that they do or not.
Yet, your own statements are such.
On 6/17/2026 9:01 AM, Tristan Wibberley wrote:
On 24/04/2026 15:41, olcott wrote:
A proposition has a well-founded justification tree
if there is a sequence of back-chained inference
steps from that proposition to the axioms of the
formal system.
By "back-chained inference steps" you mean "chained reversals of
inferences steps"?
It is exactly the same as inference steps from the
axioms to the expression yet can be done much more
quickly because a forward looking search is not
required. All theorem proving systems use back-chaining
for this reason.
On 6/17/2026 12:03 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/17/26 9:08 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 06/17/2026 08:15 AM, olcott wrote:
On 6/17/2026 10:03 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 06/17/2026 07:50 AM, olcott wrote:
On 6/17/2026 9:01 AM, Tristan Wibberley wrote:
On 24/04/2026 15:41, olcott wrote:
A proposition has a well-founded justification tree
if there is a sequence of back-chained inference
steps from that proposition to the axioms of the
formal system.
By "back-chained inference steps" you mean "chained reversals of >>>>>>> inferences steps"?
It is exactly the same as inference steps from the
axioms to the expression yet can be done much more
quickly because a forward looking search is not
required. All theorem proving systems use back-chaining
for this reason.
Hilbert-Bernays paradox
(T) The sentence ′P′ is true if and only if P
The sentence "snow is white" (syntax) is true only if
{snow is white} (semantics) is state of the world.
This sentence is not true: "This sentence is not true"
the outer sentence is true on the basis that the inner
sentence is not truth apt.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hilbert%E2%80%93Bernays_paradox
% This sentence is not true.
?- LP = not(true(LP)).
LP = not(true(LP)).
?- unify_with_occurs_check(LP, not(true(LP))).
false.
All instances of pathological self-reference
are rejected as semantically incoherent.
blanket rejecting self-reference is what they were trying a century
ago dud
YOU MUST PAY 100% COMPLETE ATTENTION TO THE EXACT
MEANING OF ALL OF MY WORDS, SKIPPING THE TERM
"PATHOLOGICAL" COMPLETELY CHANGES WHAT I SAID.
On 17/06/2026 15:50, olcott wrote:
On 6/17/2026 9:01 AM, Tristan Wibberley wrote:
On 24/04/2026 15:41, olcott wrote:
A proposition has a well-founded justification tree
if there is a sequence of back-chained inference
steps from that proposition to the axioms of the
formal system.
By "back-chained inference steps" you mean "chained reversals of
inferences steps"?
It is exactly the same as inference steps from the
axioms to the expression yet can be done much more
quickly because a forward looking search is not
required. All theorem proving systems use back-chaining
for this reason.
As does computation itself, as we have been told by Curry in Combinatory Logic I. I'm sure others told us even before that.
However, I'd like to see a proof of the relative quickness claim, axiom targetting can get stuck in loops and axioms schemes may be infinite so suffer as much in search complexity as theorem targetting.
On 17/06/2026 19:25, olcott wrote:
On 6/17/2026 12:03 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/17/26 9:08 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 06/17/2026 08:15 AM, olcott wrote:
On 6/17/2026 10:03 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 06/17/2026 07:50 AM, olcott wrote:
On 6/17/2026 9:01 AM, Tristan Wibberley wrote:
On 24/04/2026 15:41, olcott wrote:
A proposition has a well-founded justification tree
if there is a sequence of back-chained inference
steps from that proposition to the axioms of the
formal system.
By "back-chained inference steps" you mean "chained reversals of >>>>>>>> inferences steps"?
It is exactly the same as inference steps from the
axioms to the expression yet can be done much more
quickly because a forward looking search is not
required. All theorem proving systems use back-chaining
for this reason.
Hilbert-Bernays paradox
(T) The sentence ′P′ is true if and only if P
The sentence "snow is white" (syntax) is true only if
{snow is white} (semantics) is state of the world.
This sentence is not true: "This sentence is not true"
the outer sentence is true on the basis that the inner
sentence is not truth apt.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hilbert%E2%80%93Bernays_paradox
% This sentence is not true.
?- LP = not(true(LP)).
LP = not(true(LP)).
?- unify_with_occurs_check(LP, not(true(LP))).
false.
All instances of pathological self-reference
are rejected as semantically incoherent.
blanket rejecting self-reference is what they were trying a century
ago dud
YOU MUST PAY 100% COMPLETE ATTENTION TO THE EXACT
MEANING OF ALL OF MY WORDS, SKIPPING THE TERM
"PATHOLOGICAL" COMPLETELY CHANGES WHAT I SAID.
But you have proven yourself not to be a hyperbole-free zone. You have
to use more tone and mood to re-assure the reader that common hyperbole
words are not that in what they're reading.
On 6/18/2026 8:33 AM, Tristan Wibberley wrote:
On 17/06/2026 15:50, olcott wrote:
On 6/17/2026 9:01 AM, Tristan Wibberley wrote:
On 24/04/2026 15:41, olcott wrote:
A proposition has a well-founded justification tree
if there is a sequence of back-chained inference
steps from that proposition to the axioms of the
formal system.
By "back-chained inference steps" you mean "chained reversals of
inferences steps"?
It is exactly the same as inference steps from the
axioms to the expression yet can be done much more
quickly because a forward looking search is not
required. All theorem proving systems use back-chaining
for this reason.
As does computation itself, as we have been told by Curry in Combinatory
Logic I. I'm sure others told us even before that.
However, I'd like to see a proof of the relative quickness claim, axiom
targetting can get stuck in loops and axioms schemes may be infinite so
suffer as much in search complexity as theorem targetting.
The axioms themselves never get stuck in loops because
they are stored in an acyclic directed graph / simple type
hierarchy / knowledge ontology.
Also they form a finite list because they are restricted
to atomic facts only of general knowledge. Temporary
systems of axioms can be created for situation specific
knowledge.
On 6/17/2026 9:26 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/17/26 11:25 AM, olcott wrote:
On 6/17/2026 12:03 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/17/26 9:08 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 06/17/2026 08:15 AM, olcott wrote:
On 6/17/2026 10:03 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 06/17/2026 07:50 AM, olcott wrote:
On 6/17/2026 9:01 AM, Tristan Wibberley wrote:
On 24/04/2026 15:41, olcott wrote:
A proposition has a well-founded justification tree
if there is a sequence of back-chained inference
steps from that proposition to the axioms of the
formal system.
By "back-chained inference steps" you mean "chained reversals of >>>>>>>>> inferences steps"?
It is exactly the same as inference steps from the
axioms to the expression yet can be done much more
quickly because a forward looking search is not
required. All theorem proving systems use back-chaining
for this reason.
Hilbert-Bernays paradox
(T) The sentence ′P′ is true if and only if P
The sentence "snow is white" (syntax) is true only if
{snow is white} (semantics) is state of the world.
This sentence is not true: "This sentence is not true"
the outer sentence is true on the basis that the inner
sentence is not truth apt.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hilbert%E2%80%93Bernays_paradox
% This sentence is not true.
?- LP = not(true(LP)).
LP = not(true(LP)).
?- unify_with_occurs_check(LP, not(true(LP))).
false.
All instances of pathological self-reference
are rejected as semantically incoherent.
blanket rejecting self-reference is what they were trying a century
ago dud
YOU MUST PAY 100% COMPLETE ATTENTION TO THE EXACT
MEANING OF ALL OF MY WORDS, SKIPPING THE TERM
"PATHOLOGICAL" COMPLETELY CHANGES WHAT I SAID.
how do u differentiate between pathological and non pathological?
It is the exact same pattern as the above
Prolog code for every instance of specifically
pathological self-reference.
This sentence has five words. // is not pathological
and like ... just cause someone has a pathological self-reference
doesn't mean a truth doesn't exist in regards to the question being
asked.
It means the question is incoherent.
the turing jump and subsequent "arithmetic hierarchy" applied to
unsolvable problems is exactly where we left of and made no further
progress on in computability (because it was a misstep, for
computability at least)
Proof Theoretic Semantics (PTS) catches pathological
self-reference (PSR) and rejects it. The key is to make
sure to totally replace Truth Conditional Semantics
(TCS) (employed as model theory) with PTS.
If you continue to make sure to have no idea what
PTS is you will never understand me.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/proof-theoretic-semantics/
if ur not willing to put this in terms of a machine runtime idk what
ur talking about really.
I have put this in terms of machine run-time
for a few years now and people just assume
that I must be wrong because they assume that
the conventional view is inherently infallible.
https://github.com/plolcott/x86utm/blob/master/Halt7.c
Proof Theoretic Halt Prover HHH correctly determines
that its input DD does not represent a well-founded
justification tree.
computing deals with explicit facts that exist in explicit states of
the computation, where more fundamental logic doesn't have that
concept of when things exist, only that they do or not.
Yet, your own statements are such.
On 6/17/26 9:01 PM, olcott wrote:
On 6/17/2026 9:26 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/17/26 11:25 AM, olcott wrote:
On 6/17/2026 12:03 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 6/17/26 9:08 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 06/17/2026 08:15 AM, olcott wrote:
On 6/17/2026 10:03 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 06/17/2026 07:50 AM, olcott wrote:
On 6/17/2026 9:01 AM, Tristan Wibberley wrote:
On 24/04/2026 15:41, olcott wrote:
A proposition has a well-founded justification tree
if there is a sequence of back-chained inference
steps from that proposition to the axioms of the
formal system.
By "back-chained inference steps" you mean "chained reversals of >>>>>>>>>> inferences steps"?
It is exactly the same as inference steps from the
axioms to the expression yet can be done much more
quickly because a forward looking search is not
required. All theorem proving systems use back-chaining
for this reason.
Hilbert-Bernays paradox
(T) The sentence ′P′ is true if and only if P
The sentence "snow is white" (syntax) is true only if
{snow is white} (semantics) is state of the world.
This sentence is not true: "This sentence is not true"
the outer sentence is true on the basis that the inner
sentence is not truth apt.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hilbert%E2%80%93Bernays_paradox
% This sentence is not true.
?- LP = not(true(LP)).
LP = not(true(LP)).
?- unify_with_occurs_check(LP, not(true(LP))).
false.
All instances of pathological self-reference
are rejected as semantically incoherent.
blanket rejecting self-reference is what they were trying a century >>>>> ago dud
YOU MUST PAY 100% COMPLETE ATTENTION TO THE EXACT
MEANING OF ALL OF MY WORDS, SKIPPING THE TERM
"PATHOLOGICAL" COMPLETELY CHANGES WHAT I SAID.
how do u differentiate between pathological and non pathological?
It is the exact same pattern as the above
Prolog code for every instance of specifically
pathological self-reference.
This sentence has five words. // is not pathological
and like ... just cause someone has a pathological self-reference
doesn't mean a truth doesn't exist in regards to the question being
asked.
It means the question is incoherent.
but the factual truth is _all_ real machines either belong to set of
halting OR non-halting set, there is no middle ground
labeling the question HH(DDD) as incoherent is just another form of
giving up on producing the answer in some coherent manner using some
form of logic not yet thought of
if i'm not misunderstanding: i simply reject that non-resolution
the turing jump and subsequent "arithmetic hierarchy" applied to
unsolvable problems is exactly where we left of and made no further >>>>> progress on in computability (because it was a misstep, for
computability at least)
Proof Theoretic Semantics (PTS) catches pathological
self-reference (PSR) and rejects it. The key is to make
sure to totally replace Truth Conditional Semantics
(TCS) (employed as model theory) with PTS.
If you continue to make sure to have no idea what
PTS is you will never understand me.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/proof-theoretic-semantics/
if ur not willing to put this in terms of a machine runtime idk what
ur talking about really.
I have put this in terms of machine run-time
for a few years now and people just assume
that I must be wrong because they assume that
the conventional view is inherently infallible.
https://github.com/plolcott/x86utm/blob/master/Halt7.c
Proof Theoretic Halt Prover HHH correctly determines
that its input DD does not represent a well-founded
justification tree.
computing deals with explicit facts that exist in explicit states of
the computation, where more fundamental logic doesn't have that
concept of when things exist, only that they do or not.
Yet, your own statements are such.
On 6/18/2026 7:26 PM, dart200 wrote:
[...]
What about a program that uses the result from a TRNG either halt or
not? Sometimes it halts...
Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
On 6/18/2026 7:26 PM, dart200 wrote:
[...]
What about a program that uses the result from a TRNG either halt or
not? Sometimes it halts...
I didn't get olcott's reasons for 0 and 100 % halting being disincluded
from the consideration. Did you get that? It appears disingenuous. Just
a lark? Is this the kind of escapades olcott gets up to that has you confusing him with me? If it were me, I would be disincluding 77.3% and 21.5%. See, there's a fair difference in our thought processes.
| Sysop: | DaiTengu |
|---|---|
| Location: | Appleton, WI |
| Users: | 1,124 |
| Nodes: | 10 (0 / 10) |
| Uptime: | 19:42:19 |
| Calls: | 14,391 |
| Files: | 186,389 |
| D/L today: |
2,542 files (550M bytes) |
| Messages: | 2,544,856 |
| Posted today: | 1 |